“Convicted killer loses before Supreme Court”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “A man who came within eight hours of execution in 2004 for the murders of two adults and two children in a Southern California home lost what may have been his final appeal Monday, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his claim of evidence tampering.”

“The principal issue on this appeal is whether the Hostage Act has been validly applied to defendants who perpetrated an extortion scheme that used brief confinement of a taxi passenger to obtain a somewhat above average taxi fare.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling today in which that court examined the scope of the federal law enacted to implement the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages.

“Overseas Reach of U.S. Securities Law Gets Hearing”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court to decide reach of securities law.”

“Supreme Court rules to keep detainee abuse photos secret”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court decision lets Pentagon keep detainee photos secret; The Supreme Court Monday threw out a federal appeals court ruling requiring the release of photos that allegedly show abuse of US-held detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan; The court cited a new law that allows the Defense Secretary to withhold such photos.”

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “US top court orders more review in photo abuse case.”

“Justices reject Ford’s appeal of San Diego woman’s $83-million award; The woman was paralyzed in 2002 when her Ford Explorer rolled over and its roof gave way; Ford argued that punitive damages were unconstitutional because the vehicle design met safety standards”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Ford Loses U.S. High Court Appeal of $55 Million Rollover Award.”

“Civil cases against judges involve emotional suffering”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains this front page article about the northeastern Pennsylvania judicial corruption scandal.

“Calif. court limits damages in harassment case”: The Associated Press has this report on today’s punitive damages ruling of the Supreme Court of California.

“9/11 attacks still haunt potential jurors; Wrenching questions of bias as New Yorkers contemplate trial duty”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Court hears Vioxx lawsuit arguments”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Lawyers for Merck & Co. told the Supreme Court Monday investors waited too late and didn’t do all of the necessary investigations to sue the drug maker over whether it properly warned about the risks of its blockbuster painkiller Vioxx.”

You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, No. 08-905, at this link.

“An Honest Debate: Court eyes how far the anti-fraud law goes.” David G. Savage has this article in the December 2009 issue of ABA Journal magazine.

“Third Annual ABA Journal Blawg 100”: That’s the cover story of the December 2009 issue of ABA Journal magazine. And, once again, this blog has made the list.

“U.S. Supreme Court denies Nacchio again”: Andy Vuong of The Denver Post has a news update that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court, which in October denied Joe Nacchio’s petition for a review of his insider trading conviction, today rejected the former Qwest chief executive’s request for reconsideration.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court takes on fraud lawsuit vs. Australian bank.”

“Federal judges argue for reduced sentences for child-porn convicts”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.

“US Supreme Court to consider Fla. beach dispute”: The Associated Press has this report.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted certiorari in three cases.

The Court also issued a unanimous per curiam opinion in Porter v. McCollum, No. 08-10537. And Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent from the Court’s order granting a GVR in Webster v. Cooper, No. 08-10314. Instead of calling the outcome a GVR, Justice Scalia suggests describing it as an “SRMEOPR: Summary Remand for a More Extensive Opinion than Petitioner Requested.”

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court sides with Gov’t in detainee photo case“; “Court won’t disturb $82.6M award in SUV rollover“; “Court turns down Calif. death row inmate’s appeal“; “Court won’t revive student’s suit over grad speech“; “Court won’t keep paraplegic killer in prison“; and “Court won’t hear appeal on airplane crash.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court scuttles photos ruling, grants 3 cases.”

“Justice Breyer Reflects on Great Britain’s Constitutional Evolution”: Today in The Daily Journal of California, Lawrence Hurley has this interview with Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

Rulings addressing the scope of attorney-client privilege and the procedure for reducing a punitive damages award are scheduled to be released today by the Supreme Court of California: One decision scheduled for release today is expected to address whether the attorney-client privilege protects factual statements that outside counsel conveys to corporate counsel in a legal opinion letter and whether California’s Evidence Code prohibits a trial court from conducting an in camera review of a legal opinion letter to determine whether the attorney-client privilege protects facts stated in the letter.

And another decision scheduled for release today is expected to address, among other things, whether an appellate court determine the maximum constitutionally permissible award of punitive damages when it has reduced the accompanying award of compensatory damages, or whether the court should remand to the trial court for a new determination of punitive damages in light of the reduced award of compensatory damages.

Both decisions are scheduled to be released today at 1 p.m. eastern time, 10 a.m. pacific time.

“Dispute pits accident victims against insurers”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The battle over health coverage has taken a new twist in California courts, where accident victims and insurers for those who caused the accidents are squaring off over the amount due for the victims’ medical bills – a total that could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”

“City moving to promote 14 firefighters”: Today’s edition of The New Haven Register contains a front page article that begins, “The city is wasting no time making court-ordered promotions for one Hispanic and 13 white firefighters who fought for and won advancement in the U.S. Supreme Court.”

And The Yale Daily News reports today that “Firefighters promoted after lawsuit.”

“Ruling: Pot allowance should be jury’s call; Using state possession limits called improper.” Today in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Greg Moran has an article that begins, “A state appeals court in San Diego has ruled that exactly how much marijuana a medical-marijuana user can legally possess is a question that jurors should decide, and using limits defined in state law is improper.”

You can access the recent ruling of California’s Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, at this link.

“Former stripper begins conviction appeal; Now serving 99 years; lawyers say jury unfairly tainted”: This article appears today in The Anchorage Daily News.

“Accused Nazi Camp Guard on Trial in Germany”: The New York Times has a news update from Munich that begins, “John Demjanjuk, a retired American autoworker, went on trial here Monday, accused of helping to force 27,900 Jews to their deaths during the Holocaust.”

CNN.com reports that “Demjanjuk Nazi war crimes trial starts.”

The Associated Press reports that “John Demjanjuk goes on trial in Germany.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Demjanjuk Nazi Trial Raises Historic Questions, Legal Obstacles.”